Elven maidens with boobs! Mutants! Nazi Mutants!
2 Likes
What? Do you think Harvard grads shit gold, too? Harvard studies aren’t all the cream of the scientific crop. People screw up, the same publishing politics are in place, funding is a primary concern, etc. Harvard also has mediocre people working for it, like everywhere else. Just like any other institution there are people who rise to their level of incompetence.
Say hello to the argument from authority fallacy for me.
4 Likes
There’s a difference between blackbody radiation and RF warming, though go ahead and assume it must have been the former if you like, this thread is so yesterday. 
1 Like
It’s more the apparent automatic assumption that “it must be quackery because it was published at Harvard” that struck me as being a less than credible form of skepticism, one that I felt was worthy of a good natured and humorous response.
offers you a brimming glass of heavily fluoridated leaded water
Will you drink to your health and to your skepticism of the desirability of reduced exposure, then? 
Why is it, do you suppose, that the US Department of Health and Human Service revised their maximum allowable recommended fluoridation level to below the previous minimum, last year? Perhaps you should write them a letter and demand that they add back more hexafluorosilicic acid to public water supplies?
( U.S. Government Recommends Lower Level of Fluoride in Water )
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting drinking water with fewer contaminates.
Leaving out that you directly attempted to grant it authority it did not deserve because the solitary study was published by Harvard.
2 Likes
shrugs Harvard’s authority is neither mine to grant nor rescind.
But you’ll cling onto it to promote your anti-fluoridation woo of choice.
2 Likes
The fluoridation controversy discussion was intended as illustrative, as with the radio frequency emission discussion. I cling to nothing but my own amazement at the antics on display here in this thread.
Ah, just stirring the pot. Good day to you!
3 Likes
EDIT: This was their 2014 platform position. It’s been amended (thanks, nimelennar) and dialed back to a more vague support of alternative approaches. My mistake.
This is part of the current Green Party platform on healthcare, emphasis mine: “…Greens support a wide range of health care services, not just traditional medicine, which too often emphasizes “a medical arms race” that relies upon high-tech intervention, surgical techniques and costly pharmaceuticals. Chronic conditions are often best cured by alternative medicine. We support the teaching, funding and practice of holistic health approaches and, as appropriate, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and other healing approaches…”
The line I bolded is completely reckless and unforgivable and that’s before they even mention magic water and bear bile. The Green Party is not a viable alternative (in my mind) to a centrist Democratic party.
5 Likes
That’s their 20122014 policy position. They actually amended that, back in May…
The Green Party supports a wide range of health care services, including conventional medicine, as well as the teaching, funding and practice of complementary, integrative and licensed alternative health care approaches.
It’s still pretty bad, but not as bad as the 20122014 position you quoted.
2 Likes
Unfortunately, it’s not an “if”.
I make a point whenever our local Green Party has a stand on congratulating them on bearing responsibility for leaving the EU and the government stalling on environmental issues. I think they’re quite tired of it, but at least the Green Party UK is now talking about electoral pacts.
1 Like
One would experience a more extreme version of this phenomenon if they held a toaster against their head, which works on the same principals.
Okay, let’s do an experiment where we have randomly selected principals holding toasters to one side of their heads and cell telephones to the other side.
2 Likes
My mistake, thank you. I’m glad they dialed back the crazy, though they are still non-starter for me.
1 Like
You realise “possibly carcinogenic” covers just about everything, including air travel (X-rays), and that exposure to sunlight is definitely carcinogenic but that without it, it is difficult to avoid vitamin D deficiency? Or that drinking alcohol definitely raises the risk of breast cancer in women?
It’ll be decades before the possibility that low power radiation in the 900MHz-6GHz bands is implicated in any kind of ill health can be eliminated. But currently large scale epidemiology suggests that there are no detectable effects after decades (there’s a post above about this but I’ve lost it), which means that if it is carcinogenic the effect is very small - perhaps like potassium, which is definitely carcinogenic (it’s radioactive) but which is essential to life, and so we decide to take no notice of it.
3 Likes
Nobody serious says all the information is in, what they say is that there is enough information to move forward. Postponing action in favor of new studies is a tool of the right.
Thanks for letting me know; when I worked for the EPA in the 70s I thought it was a gift from God. Nixon created the EPA out of agencies that already existed (the equipment in my office all still had “FWQA” stencilled on it), the agency just centralized it and put it under presidential authority. It was a political response to a succession of high-profile environmental crises, and its high visibility under cabinet control wasn’t always a good thing.
4 Likes
That’s probably a fair characterization of my participation here, but, then, the people who started this thread with the explicit accusation that Jill Stein thinks milliwatt-scale 802.11 fries kids’ brains were probably ‘stirring the pot’ as well, so all’s fair, right? Actually, I’m grateful; so far, I think I’d rather see her in office than either Trump or Clinton (Stein would probably do less harm), and I had no idea who she was prior to this!
1 Like
The video conflates her statement about children passively staring drool-faced at TV screens with her response to a woman’s concern that children shouldn’t be using “wireless” (mobile phones). She still hasn’t said anything about “wi-fi” (802.11). At the very end of the video segment, when the parent clarifies she meant wi-fi, Stein doesn’t respond or amend. To me, this video isn’t the smoking gun it has been spun up as.
I’m now starting to think “Stein/Warren 2016!” 
